tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.comments2019-01-21T12:09:50.240-08:00bionic mosquitobionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger13969125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31085073869348570622019-01-20T19:27:07.492-08:002019-01-20T19:27:07.492-08:00I read Feser&#39;s description of his journey in a...I read Feser&#39;s description of his journey in and out of Libertarianism. Sounds like his beliefs have quite a bit of overlap with yours BM. Sounds like he has thought pretty deeply about these issues too. Not sure I agree with him 100% but he raises some good points about the NAP not being enough.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-48097036661771845192019-01-20T14:53:01.197-08:002019-01-20T14:53:01.197-08:00Thank you, Jeff.
I am not sure about Feser on thi...Thank you, Jeff.<br /><br />I am not sure about Feser on this. If I have read his view on this in the book, I don&#39;t recall.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31701555939717572832019-01-20T11:47:15.030-08:002019-01-20T11:47:15.030-08:00BM, my apologies. I didn&#39;t mean to imply you w...BM, my apologies. I didn&#39;t mean to imply you were advocating such laws. But I did believe you implied Feser was doing so. Jeff Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24939497695685344032019-01-20T07:18:38.903-08:002019-01-20T07:18:38.903-08:00&quot;...impose...moral...laws...&quot;
Jeff, oth...&quot;...impose...moral...laws...&quot;<br /><br />Jeff, other than for moral laws on things such as murder and theft, I am not here - nor have I ever - suggested such a thing. <br /><br />To be clear: I do not advocate for laws or legal physical punishment for trespasses that fall outside of the NAP.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10859992238452642652019-01-19T15:12:35.769-08:002019-01-19T15:12:35.769-08:00That really is the fundamental issue of the day is...That really is the fundamental issue of the day isn&#39;t. Those who believe there is a formal and final cause of humanity and those who don&#39;t. The left thinks there is no fundamental human nature and the right does.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84571012436094987372019-01-19T15:10:35.823-08:002019-01-19T15:10:35.823-08:00I question whether individuals or society as a who...I question whether individuals or society as a whole has the obligation or even the right to impose moral obligations on others. I believe such laws would not result in a moral or free society, but the exact opposite. I don&#39;t even think it would mater whether those obligations were derived from scripture or from the musings of the latest liberal populist. The end result would be the same. Jeff Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59005464881936014672019-01-19T14:53:14.526-08:002019-01-19T14:53:14.526-08:00Great quote ATL. I can think of an example or two ...Great quote ATL. I can think of an example or two that could be applied to me, as well.Jeff Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52268466925685226602019-01-19T06:48:36.362-08:002019-01-19T06:48:36.362-08:00Wow. I can think of a few topics that directly ap...Wow. I can think of a few topics that directly applies to both scientifically and politically.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-75060661259379921502019-01-19T06:46:37.485-08:002019-01-19T06:46:37.485-08:00ATL, one question just so I understand where you a...ATL, one question just so I understand where you are coming from, are you Catholic? Your comments about the Reformation seem to come from that viewpoint. If so, they make a lot of sense. If not, I am a bit curious how you came to your conclusions.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11315869539894106202019-01-19T06:43:55.610-08:002019-01-19T06:43:55.610-08:00I am having trouble understanding how you can prov...I am having trouble understanding how you can prove a utilitarian argument a priori. A statement about producing the most good for the most people seems to me that the discussion is now out of the realm of logic and into the realm of experience.<br /><br />This is what was puzzling to me about Human Action so far. Most of Mises&#39; writing is an a priori proof regarding human nature, agency, and cooperation. In order to support the market system all he had to do was tie it to natural law and rights to continue his a priori argument. But he doesn&#39;t do that. He then pivots his argument.<br /><br />I get why, maybe. He didn&#39;t want people to reject market capitalism if they didn&#39;t believe in natural law/right. And he probably thought the 150 years previous to his writing was clear enough evidence to show how well capitalism meets human need.<br /><br />Either way it would have been intellectually satisfying for me if he would have tied natural law/right to private property and market interaction via a priori reasoning. He then could have commented that the superiority of capitalism didn&#39;t rely on that logical link because you can look at history to see its results.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-64563475884504738242019-01-18T16:31:13.039-08:002019-01-18T16:31:13.039-08:00Good call; next update. Thanks.Good call; next update. Thanks.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25069323846674629902019-01-18T16:28:53.176-08:002019-01-18T16:28:53.176-08:00I cannot help but hold the view that by doing righ...I cannot help but hold the view that by doing right we do the most good; as it is applicable here: by hewing to natural law, prosperity (materially and otherwise) is maximized for the maximum number of people.<br /><br />We see this to be true where we work; we see it to be true with our customers; we see it to be true with our families; we see it to be true with the spouse. <br /><br />But the guiding light must be the doing what is right part, not the focusing on the maximum good for the maximum number. People want to know the rules of the road and that these are fairly and evenly applied; with this, they feel good about not being thwarted in maximizing their own good.<br /><br />Once the discussion turns to how big the pie is and how big my slice is, fights ensue - first in the universities and halls of government, eventually on the streets.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16001343270676922592019-01-18T16:20:35.392-08:002019-01-18T16:20:35.392-08:00Regarding political philosophies that are &quot;in...Regarding political philosophies that are &quot;indeterminate&quot;: show me one that isn&#39;t, or at least doesn&#39;t end with my neck at the end of a rope. If one is looking for a solid dividing line when it comes to human relations, one is expecting a bit much.<br /><br />&quot;That does not mean that everything that is morally wrong should be outlawed; that’s not the point. The point is rather that from A-T natural law theory, there is no way you are going to get the absolute right of self-ownership...&quot;<br /><br />All very valid from what I can tell. Still, whether I own me or God owns me, I am certain that my fellow man does not own me.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7782213653807793822019-01-18T12:25:45.924-08:002019-01-18T12:25:45.924-08:00&quot;To really know you have to prove it empirica...&quot;To really know you have to prove it empirically&quot;<br /><br />Well Mises and Rothbard would disagree. They believed that the benefits of unhampered trade could be ascertained &#39;a priori&#39; through disciplined logical deduction from an observed axiomatic truth. This was the essence of Mises&#39; epistemology.<br /><br />I believe what is good is &#39;beatitude&#39;, abiding Jesus&#39; teachings to the best of your ability. Short of the faith, the ancient Greek &#39;eudaimonia&#39;, or a life lived through virtuous conduct, is also good. <br /><br />I believe &#39;the good&#39; is also having access to healthy food and comfortable shelter, a loving family and convivial community, and government that more or less leaves you alone unless you hurt someone else. Apart from these things, it gets a bit subjective in my mind.<br /><br />I don&#39;t know that the Reformation was necessary, and I don&#39;t know that much good really came of it. It seems that the Reformation was the punctuation mark on the end of Latin Christendom and marked the birth of the modern state - two things I wouldn&#39;t consider &#39;good&#39;. That&#39;s a whole other topic though.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-66000824736200339242019-01-18T09:27:58.912-08:002019-01-18T09:27:58.912-08:00&quot;Feser offers that Galileo’s popular image as...&quot;Feser offers that Galileo’s popular image as a martyr for science holds no more validity than the story of George Washington and the cherry tree.&quot;<br /><br />Will you be adding this one to your BU2B section?A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27666071478658656342019-01-18T07:23:00.842-08:002019-01-18T07:23:00.842-08:00&quot;I know that most men, including those at eas...&quot;I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.&quot; - TolstoyA Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-46854956303684113232019-01-18T07:16:14.234-08:002019-01-18T07:16:14.234-08:00I agree that Mises was a utilitarian. He explicit...I agree that Mises was a utilitarian. He explicitly states that the market is good simply because it leads to the greater good for the greater amount of people. I believe that too and so do you. But I have a hard time understanding how the utilitarian argument for human market interactions can be proven. To really know you have to prove it empirically. It leaves the door open to detractors pointing out problems with capitalism and suggesting a new alternative or suggesting socialism hasn&#39;t really been tried. Of course I disagree with them and there is empirical data proving Mises correct for all the systems tried so far. My concern is for proponents for the next different system.<br /><br />I have a touch of utilitarian in me too of course. However, as a believer in Jesus, I am to follow Him even if that means I enjoy less good but experience more suffering in my life. Jesus&#39; call was to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. That is a call to sacrifice not maximizing experiences that are necessarily &quot;good&quot;. It depends on how you describe good though. In this discussion, I define good how Mises does, which is having more things or acting to satisfy more desires. However, if the desire is for holiness and obedience then it doesn&#39;t quit line up with Mises&#39; definition.<br /><br />I still think overall the more people obey God, the more true good things we experience in life. But because of sin we desire things that are bad and act to experience them. And other people seek to do us harm sometimes because of our faith in God. Like I said somewhere else. These issues get extremely complicated.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-30797072869482547942019-01-18T07:06:06.917-08:002019-01-18T07:06:06.917-08:00Luke was but Paul studied under Gamaliel as a Phar...Luke was but Paul studied under Gamaliel as a Pharisee since he was young. Pharisees viewed Greek influence as contamination. It was one of the things they were trying to purify themselves from.<br /><br />Either way, I am not talking about the authors writing. I am talking about how the audience interpreted. The method of interpretation changed in the late 2nd century/early 3rd century.<br /><br />The Greeks interpreted all spiritual writing allegorically to avoid some problematic themes and other nonsensical portions found in the myths. Interpreting all of the Bible as allegory leads to huge problems in theology and doctrine. It is why the Reformation was necessary in many ways.<br />RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62006503871406584422019-01-17T14:38:09.970-08:002019-01-17T14:38:09.970-08:00RMB,
&quot;They melded Greek philosophy with the ...RMB,<br /><br />&quot;They melded Greek philosophy with the Bible. For many years I have seen that as the greatest tragedy in history&quot;<br /><br />Since St. Paul and St. Luke were both Hellenistic Greeks, and since over 50% of the New Testament can be attributed to them combined, I don&#39;t think you can divorce the Bible from Greek influence.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73568028549639928422019-01-17T14:23:58.259-08:002019-01-17T14:23:58.259-08:00&quot;The case of Mises is particularly interestin...&quot;The case of Mises is particularly interesting, for he was, of all the economists in the twentieth century, at one and the same time the most uncompromising and passionate adherent of laissez faire and the most rigorous and uncompromising advocate of value-free economics and opponent of any sort of objective ethics.&quot; - Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty<br /><br />Mises was a pure utilitarian as far as I understand it, even if he was somewhat unconscious of this fact. Rothbard even criticized him a bit for this, because Mises always held his positions on the questions of economics to be &#39;Wertfrei&#39; or value-free. Rothbard <a href="https://mises.org/library/utilitarian-free-market-economics" rel="nofollow">demonstrated convincingly</a> that Mises, though his economic theory was rigorously objective and scientific, always held as a baseline assumption that all policy should be adopted for the &#39;greatest good for the greatest number&#39;.<br /><br />I think we all are utilitarians if you dig deep enough. Would you advocate liberty purely based on the moral argument even if it&#39;s real world effect could be reliably predicted to cause bad outcomes for most people? As libertarians, we spend a good deal of our time learning, discussing, and arguing over why and how a stateless society will work. If we weren&#39;t utilitarians, we wouldn&#39;t care if it would &#39;work&#39; or not.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23453334960278560892019-01-17T13:02:44.387-08:002019-01-17T13:02:44.387-08:00This should sum up Feser&#39;s take on libertarian...This should sum up Feser&#39;s take on libertarianism for you (from his <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-road-from-libertarianism.html" rel="nofollow">Road from Libertarianism</a>):<br /><br />&quot;Now the thesis of self-ownership was, as I have said, the core of my own commitment to libertarianism. But as I came to see, the thesis was hopelessly indeterminate, certainly way too indeterminate to ground libertarianism and even (as I now think) too indeterminate to be very interesting at all.&quot; - Feser<br /><br />And yet I&#39;m sure his &quot;still quite firm commitment to limited government and private enterprise&quot; must be boundlessly precise and non-arbitrary.<br /><br />&quot;I think that moral principle should lead us to take a broadly center-right approach to matters of politics rather than a broadly center-left approach.&quot; - Feser<br /><br />I guess not.<br /><br />He does raise some interesting points that I&#39;m sure you and others here would appreciate (as I did), but overall, he is the example par excellence of Rothbard and Hoppe&#39;s criticism of Hayekian thought: philosophical imprecision.<br /><br />Insofar as he is an Aristotelian/Thomistic, free-market, limited government, Catholic who didn&#39;t fall for &#39;distributism&#39;, he is more or less in accord with my thinking. The one interesting contention he makes, that I believe is relevant here is this:<br /><br />&quot;it became clear the more I thought about natural law theory that since the very point of natural rights was, on that view, to safeguard our ability to fulfill the ends nature had set for us, there could in principle be no such thing as a natural right to do what is positively contrary to those ends. That does not mean that everything that is morally wrong should be outlawed; that’s not the point. The point is rather that from A-T natural law theory, there is no way you are going to get the absolute right of self-ownership -- a natural right to do even what is morally wrong as long as it violates no one else’s rights -- that natural rights libertarians like Nozick and Rothbard thought we had.&quot; A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50380411740745497092019-01-17T08:32:54.892-08:002019-01-17T08:32:54.892-08:00Thank you; I am exploring as well.
If we consider...Thank you; I am exploring as well.<br /><br />If we consider Jesus as the ultimate expression of the material / formal cause, I think we will find the final cause.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36007374121640344702019-01-17T08:28:40.658-08:002019-01-17T08:28:40.658-08:00Charlemagne was the worst.
With any institution m...Charlemagne was the worst.<br /><br />With any institution made up of humans, there will be liabilities. The issue is one of a balance sheet: are there more assets than liabilities? <br /><br />The issue also is one of law - even if the law is not perfectly followed, is the law as understood the objective for society? Is the law reasonably libertarian? <br /><br />The medieval law was rather libertarian.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71887216548265396482019-01-17T07:53:47.968-08:002019-01-17T07:53:47.968-08:00Sorry for the multiple comments but they are all a...Sorry for the multiple comments but they are all a little different in emphasis.<br /><br />My last comment for now is in reference to Mises&#39; Human Action. I am reading through it and was disappointed to read that he largely rejects natural right and natural law. I think it one of the most important concepts for liberty as I am reading your blog.<br /><br />Maybe I am misunderstanding Mises. In the context of Human Action and discussing markets, social cooperation, and division of labor he may simply be explaining that natural law/rights are unneeded to have markets work. I still would have been more excited to read him extolling the virtues of natural law/rights. Have you come across those statements, BM, ATL or Rien?RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-34357797688214851682019-01-17T07:49:13.043-08:002019-01-17T07:49:13.043-08:00My initial thoughts reflect a bit what ATL writes ...My initial thoughts reflect a bit what ATL writes about above. I love the idea of a final cause. However, the idea begs a huge question! Is the final cause to feel as much pleasure as possible? Is it to vanquish all others and control the world? Is it to live a humble and quiet life?<br /><br />If you look at philosophy after Aristotle, that is one of the main discussions. What is really &quot;good&quot;. What is really the purpose of life (i.e. the final cause). Aquinas was not the first Church Father to fill in the answer with Christian virtue and morality. It started in the 2nd Century actually. <br /><br />That 2nd and 3rd generation of Christianity did something interesting. They melded Greek philosophy with the Bible. For many years I have seen that as the greatest tragedy in history, because it lead to many doctrinal problems that finally were corrected by the Reformation and Protestants in the following centuries.<br /><br />What your blog has highlighted for me though is what good did come out of that thinking. Philosophy was based on observing the world and trying to understand it through logic. From that perspective there is nothing that contradicts the Bible per se. There were some very correct insights derived from Philosophy that were helpful in understanding how we should understand the world and humanity and subjects like society, law, politics, nature, science, education, etc. Aquinas and other Catholic scholars did a good job with that.<br /><br />I guess what I am learning is that everything is complicated. Well meaning humans trying to help things cause good and bad things to happen. It also points me back to the purity of the Bible and using it to determine my viewpoint and behavior. The key is being aware of all it says while not doing more than it says. Maybe in 1 Timothy 3:16 the good works can be thought of as Aristotle&#39;s final cause or what constitutes human good.RMBnoreply@blogger.com